So many talk about stopping no deal but it amazes me that they think saying it it will happen
There were several examples of mps yesterday on the media saying it has to be stopped but not how
Some of these politicians say TM is to blame for the 29th March no deal exit date, but 498 of them voted for it and simply had not thought if through. Each and every one of them shares collective responsibility although not the 114 who voted against
There are only 3 ways to stop it. Sign a deal (there is one ready to go), revoke A50 or extend it, subject to the 27 EU countries terms
But you also have to have a government to put forward the legislation and a HOC to vote for it
So when anyone says stop no deal, they have to say how
I think people are deliberately being overly pedantic about this. When people say Theresa May should rule out no deal, they mean rule out it ever being the government's position, and that furthermore she should commit to doing everything in her power to avert it (rather than just everything that respects her red lines, or everything that keeps her party on side, etc.)
I also think it is within her power practically. If she put forward a bill saying that, if no deal is reached by March 28th, we will automatically revoke A50, I'm pretty certain that would get through parliament. Not doing so is her choice, whether or not that's a justifiable choice.
That would finish her in the party
Because otherwise she has a long and rosy future?
Not quite the same.
She has a rocky road in front but she is not going to betray all she has worked for on brexit
Not sure what you mean. In the referendum she campaigned for remain. Everything she worked on since then is her deal, which would be equally "betrayed" by No Deal as by Remain, surely?
She will not surrender on Brexit and do anything that helps remain
Perhaps she won't. Whether she could or should is a different question.
If there does have to be a second referendum with remain on the ballot, surely it should have a minimum threshold of the 17.4m votes there were for brexit for it to pass?
I do wonder if some Americans voted for him out of a sense of morbid fascination - "How bad COULD he be?"
You know what, I would like to think so. Still reprehensible, of course, but not quite such a basket of deplorable as actually liking him.
Still, don't mind me, I've got full blown TDS. It's making me a bit crazy and hard to be around.
Politics as freak-show.
Pay a shilling - and watch the inmates of Bedlam for a laugh....
I truly think that those who voted for him broadly fell into two camps: 1. those who believed he diagnosed and spoke to genuine issues that they felt strongly about and which no other politician was even admitting into the debate 2. those who hated Hillary and her policies, and voted holding their noses about Trump's awful personality because they believed/hoped he would at least prove a good business and executive mind in the Oval Office.
My guess is that virtually all of category 2 have deserted him, and that most of category 1 are trapped into still supporting him, because the basis of their original decision still holds true. And the more other politicians, particularly Democrats, ridicule Trump's statements and decisions (and even personality), the more they will cleave to him.
I was never a Trump supporter, but even now I can still see the appeal - on issues like Syria, NATO and China he is willing to break the mold (even though is implementation is awful) on issues that no other politician will touch. But lest anyone misread that, I think he is an unmitigated disaster for the country.
So many talk about stopping no deal but it amazes me that they think saying it it will happen
There were several examples of mps yesterday on the media saying it has to be stopped but not how
Some of these politicians say TM is to blame for the 29th March no deal exit date, but 498 of them voted for it and simply had not thought if through. Each and every one of them shares collective responsibility although not the 114 who voted against
There are only 3 ways to stop it. Sign a deal (there is one ready to go), revoke A50 or extend it, subject to the 27 EU countries terms
But you also have to have a government to put forward the legislation and a HOC to vote for it
So when anyone says stop no deal, they have to say how
I think people are deliberately being overly pedantic about this. When people say Theresa May should rule out no deal, they mean rule out it ever being the government's position, and that furthermore she should commit to doing everything in her power to avert it (rather than just everything that respects her red lines, or everything that keeps her party on side, etc.)
I also think it is within her power practically. If she put forward a bill saying that, if no deal is reached by March 28th, we will automatically revoke A50, I'm pretty certain that would get through parliament. Not doing so is her choice, whether or not that's a justifiable choice.
That would finish her in the party
Because otherwise she has a long and rosy future?
Not quite the same.
She has a rocky road in front but she is not going to betray all she has worked for on brexit
Not sure what you mean. In the referendum she campaigned for remain. Everything she worked on since then is her deal, which would be equally "betrayed" by No Deal as by Remain, surely?
She will not surrender on Brexit and do anything that helps remain
Perhaps she won't. Whether she could or should is a different question.
Indeed - of course she could, but impossible for her to should
The fact that Laura K is merely a mundane conduit is of importance because she is the political editor of the BBC. Her neutrality is not the issue, it is that she just parrots the lines she is fed.
If you want a proper national TV hack, go for Peston. He's a risk taker and not always right but at least he works hard to get behind the official line, which means he often provides insights and even scoops that are beyond LK, who is just a bit rubbish.
What Matt Frei says or doesn't say in a German bakehouse is utterly trivial.
When peston was at the bbc he did just the same as Laura k. He was the conduit for the treasury, then there was a change of government and his direct contact went out the window along with the accuracy of most of his reports.
Rubbish. He got one of the best biz scoops of modern times with his Northern Rock story.
Isn't that what Mr Urquhart said? His story was just a direct conduit from the Treasury .
He got that as leaked information via his unnamed inside source at the Treasury.
AKA proper journalism.
Proper journalism is more than just having a single source inside the Treasury and parroting them.
Yes, he had/has many good sources. As I say in my OP, he's a risk taker, but at least he gets behind the line. LK doesn't.
If there does have to be a second referendum with remain on the ballot, surely it should have a minimum threshold of the 17.4m votes there were for brexit for it to pass?
People's Vote?
I might raise a few eyebrows here, but:
Bring 'em on! I prefer a straight fight to all this sneaking around!
The fact that Laura K is merely a mundane conduit is of importance because she is the political editor of the BBC. Her neutrality is not the issue, it is that she just parrots the lines she is fed.
If you want a proper national TV hack, go for Peston. He's a risk taker and not always right but at least he works hard to get behind the official line, which means he often provides insights and even scoops that are beyond LK, who is just a bit rubbish.
What Matt Frei says or doesn't say in a German bakehouse is utterly trivial.
When peston was at the bbc he did just the same as Laura k. He was the conduit for the treasury, then there was a change of government and his direct contact went out the window along with the accuracy of most of his reports.
Rubbish. He got one of the best biz scoops of modern times with his Northern Rock story.
Isn't that what Mr Urquhart said? His story was just a direct conduit from the Treasury .
He got that as leaked information via his unnamed inside source at the Treasury.
AKA proper journalism.
Proper journalism is more than just having a single source inside the Treasury and parroting them.
Yes, he had/has many good sources. As I say in my OP, he's a risk taker, but at least he gets behind the line. LK doesn't.
His sources were, Ed Balls and Will Lewis (news international and brother of Gordon Brown's Director of Communications).
If there does have to be a second referendum with remain on the ballot, surely it should have a minimum threshold of the 17.4m votes there were for brexit for it to pass?
Why? People change their minds. I am not mad keen on a new referendum, but that is, sorry, just plain silly
The fact that Laura K is merely a mundane conduit is of importance because she is the political editor of the BBC. Her neutrality is not the issue, it is that she just parrots the lines she is fed.
If you want a proper national TV hack, go for Peston. He's a risk taker and not always right but at least he works hard to get behind the official line, which means he often provides insights and even scoops that are beyond LK, who is just a bit rubbish.
What Matt Frei says or doesn't say in a German bakehouse is utterly trivial.
When peston was at the bbc he did just the same as Laura k. He was the conduit for the treasury, then there was a change of government and his direct contact went out the window along with the accuracy of most of his reports.
Rubbish. He got one of the best biz scoops of modern times with his Northern Rock story.
Isn't that what Mr Urquhart said? His story was just a direct conduit from the Treasury .
He got that as leaked information via his unnamed inside source at the Treasury.
AKA proper journalism.
Peston repeats any old nonsense.
Met him once. He makes the most egotistical politician seem like a model of humility.
So many talk about stopping no deal but it amazes me that they think saying it it will happen
There were several examples of mps yesterday on the media saying it has to be stopped but not how
Some of these politicians say TM is to blame for the 29th March no deal exit date, but 498 of them voted for it and simply had not thought if through. Each and every one of them shares collective responsibility although not the 114 who voted against
There are only 3 ways to stop it. Sign a deal (there is one ready to go), revoke A50 or extend it, subject to the 27 EU countries terms
But you also have to have a government to put forward the legislation and a HOC to vote for it
So when anyone says stop no deal, they have to say how
4) as an MP introduce the amendment David Green published earlier today...
That is just an argument to revoke Article 50. It means that the EU would just sit back and wait for revocation.
The point is that it removes an option of the table. As currently we have the Deal, No Deal and Revoke as possible (albeit all unlikely options) and none of them win against the other 2 options.
By insisting on a vote on revoking A50 on March 28th one of the extreme options will be removed and finally MPs will have to make a binary decision based on what is left on the table.
So I actually don't care which option wins and whether the final vote is No Deal against May's deal or Revoke and May's Deal both questions are binary and will force MPs into a position where they have to choice one of them and cannot weasel their way out of it.
So many talk about stopping no deal but it amazes me that they think saying it it will happen
There were several examples of mps yesterday on the media saying it has to be stopped but not how
Some of these politicians say TM is to blame for the 29th March no deal exit date, but 498 of them voted for it and simply had not thought if through. Each and every one of them shares collective responsibility although not the 114 who voted against
There are only 3 ways to stop it. Sign a deal (there is one ready to go), revoke A50 or extend it, subject to the 27 EU countries terms
But you also have to have a government to put forward the legislation and a HOC to vote for it
So when anyone says stop no deal, they have to say how
I think people are deliberately being overly pedantic about this. When people say Theresa May should rule out no deal, they mean rule out it ever being the government's position, and that furthermore she should commit to doing everything in her power to avert it (rather than just everything that respects her red lines, or everything that keeps her party on side, etc.)
I also think it is within her power practically. If she put forward a bill saying that, if no deal is reached by March 28th, we will automatically revoke A50, I'm pretty certain that would get through parliament. Not doing so is her choice, whether or not that's a justifiable choice.
That would finish her in the party
Because otherwise she has a long and rosy future?
Not quite the same.
She has a rocky road in front but she is not going to betray all she has worked for on brexit
Not sure what you mean. In the referendum she campaigned for remain. Everything she worked on since then is her deal, which would be equally "betrayed" by No Deal as by Remain, surely?
She will not surrender on Brexit and do anything that helps remain
Perhaps she won't. Whether she could or should is a different question.
That is why, IMO, she is unsuitable to be PM, or even in front-line politics.
I spoke to someone yesterday and at the end of the meeting we got into a general chat and into the subject of Brexit. He said he was Remain 2 years ago (he mentioned that to me at the time two years ago too) but that Britain made a choice and we need to follow through with it. He blames the politicians for the impasse at the moment and not honouring the public's wishes. Says we just need to get on with it now and if there was another vote he would now vote Leave.
I spoke to someone yesterday and at the end of the meeting we got into a general chat and into the subject of Brexit. He said he was Remain 2 years ago (he mentioned that to me at the time two years ago too) but that Britain made a choice and we need to follow through with it. He blames the politicians for the impasse at the moment and not honouring the public's wishes. Says we just need to get on with it now and if there was another vote he would now vote Leave.
You are right, anecdotal and, therefore meaningless
So many talk about stopping no deal but it amazes me that they think saying it it will happen
There were several examples of mps yesterday on the media saying it has to be stopped but not how
Some of these politicians say TM is to blame for the 29th March no deal exit date, but 498 of them voted for it and simply had not thought if through. Each and every one of them shares collective responsibility although not the 114 who voted against
There are only 3 ways to stop it. Sign a deal (there is one ready to go), revoke A50 or extend it, subject to the 27 EU countries terms
But you also have to have a government to put forward the legislation and a HOC to vote for it
So when anyone says stop no deal, they have to say how
I think people are deliberately being overly pedantic about this. When people say Theresa May should rule out no deal, they mean rule out it ever being the government's position, and that furthermore she should commit to doing everything in her power to avert it (rather than just everything that respects her red lines, or everything that keeps her party on side, etc.)
I also think it is within her power practically. If she put forward a bill saying that, if no deal is reached by March 28th, we will automatically revoke A50, I'm pretty certain that would get through parliament. Not doing so is her choice, whether or not that's a justifiable choice.
That would finish her in the party
Because otherwise she has a long and rosy future?
Not quite the same.
She has a rocky road in front but she is not going to betray all she has worked for on brexit
Not sure what you mean. In the referendum she campaigned for remain. Everything she worked on since then is her deal, which would be equally "betrayed" by No Deal as by Remain, surely?
She will not surrender on Brexit and do anything that helps remain
Perhaps she won't. Whether she could or should is a different question.
That is why, IMO, she is unsuitable to be PM, or even in front-line politics.
You may be right, but from where I'm sitting she is less unsuitable than the main alternatives, particularly Mr. Thicky.
If there does have to be a second referendum with remain on the ballot, surely it should have a minimum threshold of the 17.4m votes there were for brexit for it to pass?
So to be in the top 2 options this time, it needs more than the top 1 option last time?
If there does have to be a second referendum with remain on the ballot, surely it should have a minimum threshold of the 17.4m votes there were for brexit for it to pass?
So to be in the top 2 options this time, it needs more than the top 1 option last time?
I spoke to someone yesterday and at the end of the meeting we got into a general chat and into the subject of Brexit. He said he was Remain 2 years ago (he mentioned that to me at the time two years ago too) but that Britain made a choice and we need to follow through with it. He blames the politicians for the impasse at the moment and not honouring the public's wishes. Says we just need to get on with it now and if there was another vote he would now vote Leave.
I do know a couple of people who have switched from Remain to actively saying they would vote leave. More people who voted Remain and think the whole process has been shambolic but that we should leave. Don’t know any leavers who have switched to remain. It’s what makes me very sceptical that a second vote is a likely win for Remain.
I do think however that it is very difficult for someone who voted leave to openly say they were wrong to do so and would now vote remain. It’s just natural to want to save face. But in the secrecy of the ballot box there could well be a decent amount of leavers that no longer have confidence in Brexit.
I spoke to someone yesterday and at the end of the meeting we got into a general chat and into the subject of Brexit. He said he was Remain 2 years ago (he mentioned that to me at the time two years ago too) but that Britain made a choice and we need to follow through with it. He blames the politicians for the impasse at the moment and not honouring the public's wishes. Says we just need to get on with it now and if there was another vote he would now vote Leave.
I do know a couple of people who have switched from Remain to actively saying they would vote leave. More people who voted Remain and think the whole process has been shambolic but that we should leave. Don’t know any leavers who have switched to remain. It’s what makes me very sceptical that a second vote is a likely win for Remain.
I do think however that it is very difficult for someone who voted leave to openly say they were wrong to do so and would now vote remain. It’s just natural to want to save face. But in the secrecy of the ballot box there could well be a decent amount of leavers that no longer have confidence in Brexit.
I know some leavers - including in my family - who voted Leave as a protest and never imagined they would win. Given the chaos that has ensued, that must be a fertile patch for new Remain voters next time.
I spoke to someone yesterday and at the end of the meeting we got into a general chat and into the subject of Brexit. He said he was Remain 2 years ago (he mentioned that to me at the time two years ago too) but that Britain made a choice and we need to follow through with it. He blames the politicians for the impasse at the moment and not honouring the public's wishes. Says we just need to get on with it now and if there was another vote he would now vote Leave.
I do know a couple of people who have switched from Remain to actively saying they would vote leave. More people who voted Remain and think the whole process has been shambolic but that we should leave. Don’t know any leavers who have switched to remain. It’s what makes me very sceptical that a second vote is a likely win for Remain.
I do think however that it is very difficult for someone who voted leave to openly say they were wrong to do so and would now vote remain. It’s just natural to want to save face. But in the secrecy of the ballot box there could well be a decent amount of leavers that no longer have confidence in Brexit.
If there does have to be a second referendum with remain on the ballot, surely it should have a minimum threshold of the 17.4m votes there were for brexit for it to pass?
Nice suggestion! As an alternative I like the idea of Remain needing 60% to overturn the original decision.
As so often in life and politics there is a lesson from cricket. When you're given out, you can ask for a review, and you will be successful if that shows clear and palpable error by the umpire. If it shows that the original decision was right, or just perhaps right, then it stands. Perhaps right is known as 'umpire's call'. A great system since it eradicates terrible mistakes but at the same time protects the authority of the on-field umpire - just as here we need to correct a terrible mistake but without disrespecting the original referendum.
So, Remain was given out LBW in 2016 and now we review. Is the ball clipping leg? Ok, so still out. Just missing leg by a hair? Umpires call, still out. Missing by a country mile? Decision reversed and we remain.
60% seems about right for that. And as it happens - if up against May's despised deal - I foresee no problem in Remain clearing that.
Peston - correlation doesn’t equal causation but the demise of the Brown administration and the decline of his accurate insight do appear to march in step.
I spoke to someone yesterday and at the end of the meeting we got into a general chat and into the subject of Brexit. He said he was Remain 2 years ago (he mentioned that to me at the time two years ago too) but that Britain made a choice and we need to follow through with it. He blames the politicians for the impasse at the moment and not honouring the public's wishes. Says we just need to get on with it now and if there was another vote he would now vote Leave.
You are right, anecdotal and, therefore meaningless
No need to be rude. Anecdotal yes but interestingly matches what OGH said in yesterday's header.
I spoke to someone yesterday and at the end of the meeting we got into a general chat and into the subject of Brexit. He said he was Remain 2 years ago (he mentioned that to me at the time two years ago too) but that Britain made a choice and we need to follow through with it. He blames the politicians for the impasse at the moment and not honouring the public's wishes. Says we just need to get on with it now and if there was another vote he would now vote Leave.
You are right, anecdotal and, therefore meaningless
In fairness though, Nigel, it is an argument and one I have some sympathy with - a sort of 'lay in the bed you've made' line of thought. Brexit may be a disaster but we would get over it in time and if it made people a bit more careful about what they voted for, and a bit more aware of the importance of political choices, would that be such a bad thing.
The counter-arguments are plenty of course, but I wouldn't be dismissive of Philip's line. It's certainly far more reasonable than some of the nonsense that was trotted out at the referendum.
If there does have to be a second referendum with remain on the ballot, surely it should have a minimum threshold of the 17.4m votes there were for brexit for it to pass?
Nice suggestion! As an alternative I like the idea of Remain needing 60% to overturn the original decision.
As so often in life and politics there is a lesson from cricket. When you're given out, you can ask for a review, and you will be successful if that shows clear and palpable error by the umpire. If it shows that the original decision was right, or just perhaps right, then it stands. Perhaps right is known as 'umpire's call'. A great system since it eradicates terrible mistakes but at the same time protects the authority of the on-field umpire - just as here we need to correct a terrible mistake but without disrespecting the original referendum.
So, Remain was given out LBW in 2016 and now we review. Is the ball clipping leg? Ok, so still out. Just missing leg by a hair? Umpires call, still out. Missing by a country mile? Decision reversed and we remain.
60% seems about right for that. And as it happens - if up against May's despised deal - I foresee no problem in Remain clearing that.
I guess it is a relief your metaphor is cricket and not WW2.
I know of a Leaver who has switched to Remain. But rather than rely on anecdote we have plenty of polling showing that a few people have switched in both directions but most people have not.
What would make a second referendum more difficult for Leavers is that a specific Leave option would be given. Some hardcore Leavers would boycott a Deal option and some softcore Leavers would vote Remain against No Deal.
If there does have to be a second referendum with remain on the ballot, surely it should have a minimum threshold of the 17.4m votes there were for brexit for it to pass?
Nice suggestion! As an alternative I like the idea of Remain needing 60% to overturn the original decision.
As so often in life and politics there is a lesson from cricket. When you're given out, you can ask for a review, and you will be successful if that shows clear and palpable error by the umpire. If it shows that the original decision was right, or just perhaps right, then it stands. Perhaps right is known as 'umpire's call'. A great system since it eradicates terrible mistakes but at the same time protects the authority of the on-field umpire - just as here we need to correct a terrible mistake but without disrespecting the original referendum.
So, Remain was given out LBW in 2016 and now we review. Is the ball clipping leg? Ok, so still out. Just missing leg by a hair? Umpires call, still out. Missing by a country mile? Decision reversed and we remain.
60% seems about right for that. And as it happens - if up against May's despised deal - I foresee no problem in Remain clearing that.
Yes because there really would be no democratic crisis at all if Remain won 55:45 (so more conclusively than the original vote was won) but the decision was not reversed.
So many talk about stopping no deal but it amazes me that they think saying it it will happen
There were several examples of mps yesterday on the media saying it has to be stopped but not how
Some of these politicians say TM is to blame for the 29th March no deal exit date, but 498 of them voted for it and simply had not thought if through. Each and every one of them shares collective responsibility although not the 114 who voted against
There are only 3 ways to stop it. Sign a deal (there is one ready to go), revoke A50 or extend it, subject to the 27 EU countries terms
But you also have to have a government to put forward the legislation and a HOC to vote for it
So when anyone says stop no deal, they have to say how
I think people are deliberately being overly pedantic about this. When people say Theresa May should rule out no deal, they mean rule out it ever being the government's position, and that furthermore she should commit to doing everything in her power to avert it (rather than just everything that respects her red lines, or everything that keeps her party on side, etc.)
I also think it is within her power practically. If she put forward a bill saying that, if no deal is reached by March 28th, we will automatically revoke A50, I'm pretty certain that would get through parliament. Not doing so is her choice, whether or not that's a justifiable choice.
That would finish her in the party
Because otherwise she has a long and rosy future?
Not quite the same.
She has a rocky road in front but she is not going to betray all she has worked for on brexit
Not sure what you mean. In the referendum she campaigned for remain. Everything she worked on since then is her deal, which would be equally "betrayed" by No Deal as by Remain, surely?
She will not surrender on Brexit and do anything that helps remain
Perhaps she won't. Whether she could or should is a different question.
That is why, IMO, she is unsuitable to be PM, or even in front-line politics.
You may be right, but from where I'm sitting she is less unsuitable than the main alternatives, particularly Mr. Thicky.
Well Corbyn did manage 2 A levels in the late 1960s. Ok - they were both E grades but their present day equivalent would certainly be 2 C grades. Academically he would have been in the top 15% - 20%.
I know of a Leaver who has switched to Remain. But rather than rely on anecdote we have plenty of polling showing that a few people have switched in both directions but most people have not.
What would make a second referendum more difficult for Leavers is that a specific Leave option would be given. Some hardcore Leavers would boycott a Deal option and some softcore Leavers would vote Remain against No Deal.
Indeed. It would be a real possibility versus the status quo, as opposed to the "all-things-to-all-bigots" approach used by the Leave campaign in 2016. I am still not convinced Remain would win though. The closed minded are unlikely to be moved by any amount of reality
I know of a Leaver who has switched to Remain. But rather than rely on anecdote we have plenty of polling showing that a few people have switched in both directions but most people have not.
What would make a second referendum more difficult for Leavers is that a specific Leave option would be given. Some hardcore Leavers would boycott a Deal option and some softcore Leavers would vote Remain against No Deal.
Indeed. It would be a real possibility versus the status quo, as opposed to the "all-things-to-all-bigots" approach used by the Leave campaign in 2016. I am still not convinced Remain would win though. The closed minded are unlikely to be moved by any amount of reality
Oh, I don't know, Nigel. There was an interesting TV report from Llanelli recently which suggested it was now marginal Remain whereas it had been heavily Leave before. This appears to have something to do with the closure of a German-owned industrial plant in the area.
Mr.124: Corbyn went to one of the top grammar schools in the country and still only achieved 2 Es at Alevel. It would be interesting to see what percentage of his peers from that school did worse. It isn't only this though, his behaviour and his speeches all suggest he is not even close to the intellectual capabilities of people from all parties that have held high office. He might be on a par with Prescott or Andrea Loathsome, but this is not a high bar. I think if we were to do a survey of IQs across parliament it would be a safe bet to think he would be in the bottom 10%
As for him being able to negotiate a better deal with the EU, the prospect is laughable.
I know of a Leaver who has switched to Remain. But rather than rely on anecdote we have plenty of polling showing that a few people have switched in both directions but most people have not.
What would make a second referendum more difficult for Leavers is that a specific Leave option would be given. Some hardcore Leavers would boycott a Deal option and some softcore Leavers would vote Remain against No Deal.
Indeed. It would be a real possibility versus the status quo, as opposed to the "all-things-to-all-bigots" approach used by the Leave campaign in 2016. I am still not convinced Remain would win though. The closed minded are unlikely to be moved by any amount of reality
Oh, I don't know, Nigel. There was an interesting TV report from Llanelli recently which suggested it was now marginal Remain whereas it had been heavily Leave before. This appears to have something to do with the closure of a German-owned industrial plant in the area.
Some realities are harder to ignore than others.
Well, yes that is very true. Apparently Leave voters are still OK with people losing their jobs, even people in their own families. If it comes for them, that is probably where they draw the line
Mr.124: Corbyn went to one of the top grammar schools in the country and still only achieved 2 Es at Alevel. It would be interesting to see what percentage of his peers from that school did worse. It isn't only this though, his behaviour and his speeches all suggest he is not even close to the intellectual capabilities of people from all parties that have held high office. He might be on a par with Prescott or Andrea Loathsome, but this is not a high bar. I think if we were to do a survey of IQs across parliament it would be a safe bet to think he would be in the bottom 10%
As for him being able to negotiate a better deal with the EU, the prospect is laughable.
Academically his record was better than Churchill's , and whatever advantages he enjoyed he certainly did not go to Harrow. As far as A levels are concerned, many people simply ignore - or are unaware of - the fact that under the Relative Marking system used until the end of the 1980s 30% of pupils failed the exams or were awarded an O level pass. He may well have sat a third A level - though I don't know this - and failed to get an E grade. If so, it would be highly unlikely that he would have failed to achieve such a grade today - given that a mere 2.5% do so.
I know of a Leaver who has switched to Remain. But rather than rely on anecdote we have plenty of polling showing that a few people have switched in both directions but most people have not.
What would make a second referendum more difficult for Leavers is that a specific Leave option would be given. Some hardcore Leavers would boycott a Deal option and some softcore Leavers would vote Remain against No Deal.
Indeed. It would be a real possibility versus the status quo, as opposed to the "all-things-to-all-bigots" approach used by the Leave campaign in 2016. I am still not convinced Remain would win though. The closed minded are unlikely to be moved by any amount of reality
Oh, I don't know, Nigel. There was an interesting TV report from Llanelli recently which suggested it was now marginal Remain whereas it had been heavily Leave before. This appears to have something to do with the closure of a German-owned industrial plant in the area.
Some realities are harder to ignore than others.
Well, yes that is very true. Apparently Leave voters are still OK with people losing their jobs, even people in their own families. If it comes for them, that is probably where they draw the line
Isn't that no different from the definition of a recession and a depression. A recession is a time when people you know lose their job, a depression is when you lose yours....
Let's have a good laugh at the stupid Paddies eh Mr Alanbrooke?
international relations isnt your strong point, stick to shagga dog stories
Au contraire. International relations are very much my strong point, which is why I have nothing but contempt for nasty little bigots who attempt to parade their English superiority, whilst simultaneously regularly not knowing how to put together a coherent sentence, or know where an apostrophe should be used. As for your puerile attempts at put downs, I don't think even Jeremy Corbyn would employ you.
Ireland's Central Statistics Office released figures on 29 June, which show that in 2017 553,630 loaded Ro-Ro freight containers, on lorries or trailers, were shipped from Ireland to the rest of the world.
The vast majority were heading for other ports in the EU. Only a tiny number - 24 - went to ports elsewhere. About 85% of Ireland's total EU freight trade goes via British ports - 475,925 containers last year.
Let's have a good laugh at the stupid Paddies eh Mr Alanbrooke?
international relations isnt your strong point, stick to shagga dog stories
Au contraire. International relations are very much my strong point, which is why I have nothing but contempt for nasty little bigots who attempt to parade their English superiority, whilst simultaneously regularly not knowing how to put together a coherent sentence, or know where an apostrophe should be used. As for your puerile attempts at put downs, I don't think even Jeremy Corbyn would employ you.
Mr.124: Corbyn went to one of the top grammar schools in the country and still only achieved 2 Es at Alevel. It would be interesting to see what percentage of his peers from that school did worse. It isn't only this though, his behaviour and his speeches all suggest he is not even close to the intellectual capabilities of people from all parties that have held high office. He might be on a par with Prescott or Andrea Loathsome, but this is not a high bar. I think if we were to do a survey of IQs across parliament it would be a safe bet to think he would be in the bottom 10%
As for him being able to negotiate a better deal with the EU, the prospect is laughable.
Academically his record was better than Churchill's , and whatever advantages he enjoyed he certainly did not go to Harrow. As far as A levels are concerned, many people simply ignore - or are unaware of - the fact that under the Relative Marking system used until the end of the 1980s 30% of pupils failed the exams or were awarded an O level pass. He may well have sat a third A level - though I don't know this - and failed to get an E grade. If so, it would be highly unlikely that he would have failed to achieve such a grade today - given that a mere 2.5% do so.
I am afraid you lost your credibility when you mentioned Churchill in the same paragraph as Corbyn. He is thick. Get over it.
Ireland's Central Statistics Office released figures on 29 June, which show that in 2017 553,630 loaded Ro-Ro freight containers, on lorries or trailers, were shipped from Ireland to the rest of the world.
The vast majority were heading for other ports in the EU. Only a tiny number - 24 - went to ports elsewhere. About 85% of Ireland's total EU freight trade goes via British ports - 475,925 containers last year.
I reckon Leo got maximum value out of kick the brits around September October last year, he should have settled then and he would have come out well ahead. he has now hung in too long and cant back off, if it goes wrong he;s got a huge problem.
Mr.124: Corbyn went to one of the top grammar schools in the country and still only achieved 2 Es at Alevel. It would be interesting to see what percentage of his peers from that school did worse. It isn't only this though, his behaviour and his speeches all suggest he is not even close to the intellectual capabilities of people from all parties that have held high office. He might be on a par with Prescott or Andrea Loathsome, but this is not a high bar. I think if we were to do a survey of IQs across parliament it would be a safe bet to think he would be in the bottom 10%
As for him being able to negotiate a better deal with the EU, the prospect is laughable.
Academically his record was better than Churchill's , and whatever advantages he enjoyed he certainly did not go to Harrow. As far as A levels are concerned, many people simply ignore - or are unaware of - the fact that under the Relative Marking system used until the end of the 1980s 30% of pupils failed the exams or were awarded an O level pass. He may well have sat a third A level - though I don't know this - and failed to get an E grade. If so, it would be highly unlikely that he would have failed to achieve such a grade today - given that a mere 2.5% do so.
Unlike Jezza, I think Churchil might have done a thing or two a bit later in life that proved he wasn't a total thickie.
Jezza on the other hand shows little to dispute that his A-Levels were indicative of his intellectual abilities.
Yes because there really would be no democratic crisis at all if Remain won 55:45 (so more conclusively than the original vote was won) but the decision was not reversed.
Well, doesn't have to be 60%. In fact 55/45 is probably missing leg by enough.
Just the principle.
Certainly a '55' hurdle for making such a huge change in the 1st place looks quite attractive now.
Let's have a good laugh at the stupid Paddies eh Mr Alanbrooke?
international relations isnt your strong point, stick to shagga dog stories
Au contraire. International relations are very much my strong point, which is why I have nothing but contempt for nasty little bigots who attempt to parade their English superiority, whilst simultaneously regularly not knowing how to put together a coherent sentence, or know where an apostrophe should be used. As for your puerile attempts at put downs, I don't think even Jeremy Corbyn would employ you.
woof woof
There you go, showing your English superiority again....
This is why May MUST make her choice - soft Brexit as it can win in Parliament and is in the national interest.
Wrong choice.
She must rule out any further softening or extension or revocation. Either the EU can come back with a deal acceptable to the DUP and ERG or we no deal or those opposed to no deal can prevent it with her deal.
See two can play at that game. Everyone is demanding compromise with compromise being whatever they happen to believe already.
I spoke to someone yesterday and at the end of the meeting we got into a general chat and into the subject of Brexit. He said he was Remain 2 years ago (he mentioned that to me at the time two years ago too) but that Britain made a choice and we need to follow through with it. He blames the politicians for the impasse at the moment and not honouring the public's wishes. Says we just need to get on with it now and if there was another vote he would now vote Leave.
You are right, anecdotal and, therefore meaningless
No need to be rude. Anecdotal yes but interestingly matches what OGH said in yesterday's header.
Maybe, but when I saw your name I was not surprised at which way the anecdote went. I hasten to add that I'm not doubting your word, but it may just be an example of the 'observer effect'.
Let's have a good laugh at the stupid Paddies eh Mr Alanbrooke?
international relations isnt your strong point, stick to shagga dog stories
Au contraire. International relations are very much my strong point, which is why I have nothing but contempt for nasty little bigots who attempt to parade their English superiority, whilst simultaneously regularly not knowing how to put together a coherent sentence, or know where an apostrophe should be used. As for your puerile attempts at put downs, I don't think even Jeremy Corbyn would employ you.
woof woof
There you go, showing your English superiority again....
His wit and intellect shines out through PB like a beacon in a fog of mediocrity
I have a slightly different issue. My input system has identified "Brexit" as a swear word/offensive language and keeps trying to change it to something else to spare my sensitivities.
This is why May MUST make her choice - soft Brexit as it can win in Parliament and is in the national interest.
Wrong choice.
She must rule out any further softening or extension or revocation. Either the EU can come back with a deal acceptable to the DUP and ERG or we no deal or those opposed to no deal can prevent it with her deal.
See two can play at that game. Everyone is demanding compromise with compromise being whatever they happen to believe already.
This is why May MUST make her choice - soft Brexit as it can win in Parliament and is in the national interest.
Wrong choice.
She must rule out any further softening or extension or revocation. Either the EU can come back with a deal acceptable to the DUP and ERG or we no deal or those opposed to no deal can prevent it with her deal.
See two can play at that game. Everyone is demanding compromise with compromise being whatever they happen to believe already.
There is no majority for that line. Maybe try reading the post next time.
Mr.124: Corbyn went to one of the top grammar schools in the country and still only achieved 2 Es at Alevel. It would be interesting to see what percentage of his peers from that school did worse. It isn't only this though, his behaviour and his speeches all suggest he is not even close to the intellectual capabilities of people from all parties that have held high office. He might be on a par with Prescott or Andrea Loathsome, but this is not a high bar. I think if we were to do a survey of IQs across parliament it would be a safe bet to think he would be in the bottom 10%
As for him being able to negotiate a better deal with the EU, the prospect is laughable.
Academically his record was better than Churchill's , and whatever advantages he enjoyed he certainly did not go to Harrow. As far as A levels are concerned, many people simply ignore - or are unaware of - the fact that under the Relative Marking system used until the end of the 1980s 30% of pupils failed the exams or were awarded an O level pass. He may well have sat a third A level - though I don't know this - and failed to get an E grade. If so, it would be highly unlikely that he would have failed to achieve such a grade today - given that a mere 2.5% do so.
Unlike Jezza, I think Churchil might have done a thing or two a bit later in life that proved he wasn't a total thickie.
Jezza on the other hand shows little to dispute that his A-Levels were indicative of his intellectual abilities.
I think his A levels were probably his high water mark of intellectual attainment
Let's have a good laugh at the stupid Paddies eh Mr Alanbrooke?
international relations isnt your strong point, stick to shagga dog stories
Au contraire. International relations are very much my strong point, which is why I have nothing but contempt for nasty little bigots who attempt to parade their English superiority, whilst simultaneously regularly not knowing how to put together a coherent sentence, or know where an apostrophe should be used. As for your puerile attempts at put downs, I don't think even Jeremy Corbyn would employ you.
You really are thick, do you actually ever read any posts other than your own.
Mr.124: Corbyn went to one of the top grammar schools in the country and still only achieved 2 Es at Alevel. It would be interesting to see what percentage of his peers from that school did worse. It isn't only this though, his behaviour and his speeches all suggest he is not even close to the intellectual capabilities of people from all parties that have held high office. He might be on a par with Prescott or Andrea Loathsome, but this is not a high bar. I think if we were to do a survey of IQs across parliament it would be a safe bet to think he would be in the bottom 10%
As for him being able to negotiate a better deal with the EU, the prospect is laughable.
Oh Ye of little faith. As it says in the book of momentum chapter 3 - And so the blessed grandpa will defeat the evil stone woman and he shall rise up on the clouds and travel to the city of Brussels. There the scribes shall bow before him and agree to the custom of taxation he wishes.
Jeremy the momentous shall then return to London and after taking a period of solemn reflection in his vegetable garden, he shall then return to Westminster to establish his socialist paradise
I guess it is a relief your metaphor is cricket and not WW2.
:-)
Re-running the EU referendum, although the worst idea since the original Breville Sandwich Toaster, is something I can just about get my head around.
That is very much not the case with WW2 - although some do seem to be still fighting it.
"The European Union is a tool of German hegemony over Europe. What Hitler failed to achieve with his messerschmitts and panzer divisions is being insidiously and relentlessly forced upon the continent by other means."
As we approach the end of an extraordinary week, are we much the wiser? As most of us expected, May's Withdrawal Agreement was heavily defeated in the Commons - whether many of us thought it would go down so heavily I don't know - but I still get the sense it is no Norwegian Blue and is still there in the background.
I said on Monday five things wouldn't happen - these included a Second Referendum, Revocation of A50 and a GE. The polls might offer the Conservatives a window of opportunity but 230 was a big margin and there's no guarantee the new Conservative intake would be full of May loyalists itching to vote for her Deal.
At the moment then it's No Deal and the consequences thereof. I imagine a mutually agreed extension to A50 is more than possible but to do what? Additional preparations for leaving without a Deal - possibly but I keep hearing this notion of the permanent CU.
Both May and Corbyn face significant difficulties - May has a policy her Party doesn't want while Corbyn doesn't have a policy but his Party wants one.
As an aside, I'm inclined to the view that IF we had a second vote, LEAVE would win again and possibly by a larger margin but that's all obfuscation. The problem is more immediate and I suspect the can should be ready for another kicking as I see little alternative to an extension to A50 at this time.
Mr.124: Corbyn went to one of the top grammar schools in the country and still only achieved 2 Es at Alevel. It would be interesting to see what percentage of his peers from that school did worse. It isn't only this though, his behaviour and his speeches all suggest he is not even close to the intellectual capabilities of people from all parties that have held high office. He might be on a par with Prescott or Andrea Loathsome, but this is not a high bar. I think if we were to do a survey of IQs across parliament it would be a safe bet to think he would be in the bottom 10%
As for him being able to negotiate a better deal with the EU, the prospect is laughable.
Oh Ye of little faith. As it says in the book of momentum chapter 3 - And so the blessed grandpa will defeat the evil stone woman and he shall rise up on the clouds and travel to the city of Brussels. There the scribes shall bow before him and agree to the custom of taxation he wishes.
Jeremy the momentous shall then return to London and after taking a period of solemn reflection in his vegetable garden, he shall then return to Westminster to establish his socialist paradise
Wow, how did you access the official biography? I didn't think it was going to be released until after these events have happened?
Mr.124: Corbyn went to one of the top grammar schools in the country and still only achieved 2 Es at Alevel. It would be interesting to see what percentage of his peers from that school did worse. It isn't only this though, his behaviour and his speeches all suggest he is not even close to the intellectual capabilities of people from all parties that have held high office. He might be on a par with Prescott or Andrea Loathsome, but this is not a high bar. I think if we were to do a survey of IQs across parliament it would be a safe bet to think he would be in the bottom 10%
As for him being able to negotiate a better deal with the EU, the prospect is laughable.
Academically his record was better than Churchill's , and whatever advantages he enjoyed he certainly did not go to Harrow. As far as A levels are concerned, many people simply ignore - or are unaware of - the fact that under the Relative Marking system used until the end of the 1980s 30% of pupils failed the exams or were awarded an O level pass. He may well have sat a third A level - though I don't know this - and failed to get an E grade. If so, it would be highly unlikely that he would have failed to achieve such a grade today - given that a mere 2.5% do so.
Unlike Jezza, I think Churchil might have done a thing or two a bit later in life that proved he wasn't a total thickie.
Jezza on the other hand shows little to dispute that his A-Levels were indicative of his intellectual abilities.
I understand your point , but people need to be a little careful in labelling those who emerged with E grades at A level in the 1960s as being 'thick'. The reality was different in that such exams were much more difficult to pass than their present day successors bearing the same name. I sat A levels at a Grammar School in the early 1970s and recall that only circa 50% of the original intake went on to enter the sixth form. Five years earlier - when Corbyn took his A levels - the sixth form was even smaller. I also recall a fair number sitting three A levels who ended up with three O level passes - ie they failed the lot! In my own year there were also boys who achieved B and D grades - 2 Bs and a D - yet gained entry to Oxbridge.Those boys today would at the very least have managed 2 As and a B.
As an aside, I'm inclined to the view that IF we had a second vote, LEAVE would win again and possibly by a larger margin but that's all obfuscation. The problem is more immediate and I suspect the can should be ready for another kicking as I see little alternative to an extension to A50 at this time.
Afternoon stodge.
Leave winning by a bigger margin probably a good thing, would give legitimacy to the result in enough peoples eyes that you could force through a hard or maybe even a no deal Brexit through parliament with little objection.
Let's have a good laugh at the stupid Paddies eh Mr Alanbrooke?
What a strange comment.
Well I only wrote it once. However, it was meant to indicate Mr Alanbrooke's misplaced sense of superiority to all people foreign.
Except he didn't - you made a reference to 'paddies'.
You seem to have a problem repeating repeating repeating yourself. Anyway, I am sorry you don't understand irony, I used the term in a way that I though someone who held such views might. Also, as I am half Irish myself, I thought it was OK.
It is still very disappointing to see people that should have learnt how things work over the past 2 odd years, still do not have a clue. The 22% illustrated is nothing to do with the WTO but everything to do with the Common External Tariff or more correctly the EU.
This is why May MUST make her choice - soft Brexit as it can win in Parliament and is in the national interest.
Wrong choice.
She must rule out any further softening or extension or revocation. Either the EU can come back with a deal acceptable to the DUP and ERG or we no deal or those opposed to no deal can prevent it with her deal.
See two can play at that game. Everyone is demanding compromise with compromise being whatever they happen to believe already.
Given that the Remain supporting MPs profess to be so concerned about the economy, I think further talks that are not about fleshing out the future trading relationship are pointless but they are unlikely to swing MPs. Any further talks should be about trade.
The EU won’t agree to that because the WA traps us in the backstop with no way out unless we take the terms that are given to us by the EU.
Norway solves the trade issue but is effectively EU membership excluding the CAP and CFP. Signing up to paying for trade, Single Market Rules, the Common External Tariff and continues freedom of movement is not going to persuade Leave MPs.
It’s gridlock and the effective choice is therefore no deal or Brexit.
This is why May MUST make her choice - soft Brexit as it can win in Parliament and is in the national interest.
Wrong choice.
She must rule out any further softening or extension or revocation. Either the EU can come back with a deal acceptable to the DUP and ERG or we no deal or those opposed to no deal can prevent it with her deal.
See two can play at that game. Everyone is demanding compromise with compromise being whatever they happen to believe already.
There is no majority for that line. Maybe try reading the post next time.
The easiest hundred votes for a deal are those from the DUP and the Tories. To get them she needs to remove the in perpetuity nature of the backstop. Why it cannot be subject to a a50 two year notice I don’t know.
Comments
1. those who believed he diagnosed and spoke to genuine issues that they felt strongly about and which no other politician was even admitting into the debate
2. those who hated Hillary and her policies, and voted holding their noses about Trump's awful personality because they believed/hoped he would at least prove a good business and executive mind in the Oval Office.
My guess is that virtually all of category 2 have deserted him, and that most of category 1 are trapped into still supporting him, because the basis of their original decision still holds true. And the more other politicians, particularly Democrats, ridicule Trump's statements and decisions (and even personality), the more they will cleave to him.
I was never a Trump supporter, but even now I can still see the appeal - on issues like Syria, NATO and China he is willing to break the mold (even though is implementation is awful) on issues that no other politician will touch. But lest anyone misread that, I think he is an unmitigated disaster for the country.
I might raise a few eyebrows here, but:
Bring 'em on! I prefer a straight fight to all this sneaking around!
By insisting on a vote on revoking A50 on March 28th one of the extreme options will be removed and finally MPs will have to make a binary decision based on what is left on the table.
So I actually don't care which option wins and whether the final vote is No Deal against May's deal or Revoke and May's Deal both questions are binary and will force MPs into a position where they have to choice one of them and cannot weasel their way out of it.
I spoke to someone yesterday and at the end of the meeting we got into a general chat and into the subject of Brexit. He said he was Remain 2 years ago (he mentioned that to me at the time two years ago too) but that Britain made a choice and we need to follow through with it. He blames the politicians for the impasse at the moment and not honouring the public's wishes. Says we just need to get on with it now and if there was another vote he would now vote Leave.
You're a clever lad, aren't you?
Politico had an article recently...
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/01/13/2020-election-julian-castro-223963
I do think however that it is very difficult for someone who voted leave to openly say they were wrong to do so and would now vote remain. It’s just natural to want to save face. But in the secrecy of the ballot box there could well be a decent amount of leavers that no longer have confidence in Brexit.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/01/18/world/politics-diplomacy-world/regretful-remainer-now-former-brexit-backers-lobby-chance-right-wrong-ballot-box/
As so often in life and politics there is a lesson from cricket. When you're given out, you can ask for a review, and you will be successful if that shows clear and palpable error by the umpire. If it shows that the original decision was right, or just perhaps right, then it stands. Perhaps right is known as 'umpire's call'. A great system since it eradicates terrible mistakes but at the same time protects the authority of the on-field umpire - just as here we need to correct a terrible mistake but without disrespecting the original referendum.
So, Remain was given out LBW in 2016 and now we review. Is the ball clipping leg? Ok, so still out. Just missing leg by a hair? Umpires call, still out. Missing by a country mile? Decision reversed and we remain.
60% seems about right for that. And as it happens - if up against May's despised deal - I foresee no problem in Remain clearing that.
The counter-arguments are plenty of course, but I wouldn't be dismissive of Philip's line. It's certainly far more reasonable than some of the nonsense that was trotted out at the referendum.
Good afternoon, everyone.
What would make a second referendum more difficult for Leavers is that a specific Leave option would be given. Some hardcore Leavers would boycott a Deal option and some softcore Leavers would vote Remain against No Deal.
Some realities are harder to ignore than others.
https://twitter.com/ColMikeTanner/status/1086245026169012224
As for him being able to negotiate a better deal with the EU, the prospect is laughable.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/18/sweden-gets-new-government-more-than-four-months-after-election
Leo's Brexit gambit reaches squeaky bum time
https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/were-not-ready-we-are-screwed-businesses-warn-37724135.html
https://www.aol.co.uk/video/view/you-can-actually-buy-this-jetpack-at-selfridges-for-340k/5b50901bc2ec104fe3828a72
Edit: Oh, Elton John!! V Good.
Looks like Ireland's friction free, pollution heavy, freebie road bridge to the continent may be a bit slower in the future. Heart of stone etc.
https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1086214081013575680
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44657460
Ireland's Central Statistics Office released figures on 29 June, which show that in 2017 553,630 loaded Ro-Ro freight containers, on lorries or trailers, were shipped from Ireland to the rest of the world.
The vast majority were heading for other ports in the EU. Only a tiny number - 24 - went to ports elsewhere. About 85% of Ireland's total EU freight trade goes via British ports - 475,925 containers last year.
@Dura?
Jezza on the other hand shows little to dispute that his A-Levels were indicative of his intellectual abilities.
Just the principle.
Certainly a '55' hurdle for making such a huge change in the 1st place looks quite attractive now.
https://twitter.com/NewDay/status/1086246435861852160
She must rule out any further softening or extension or revocation. Either the EU can come back with a deal acceptable to the DUP and ERG or we no deal or those opposed to no deal can prevent it with her deal.
See two can play at that game. Everyone is demanding compromise with compromise being whatever they happen to believe already.
I hasten to add that I'm not doubting your word, but it may just be an example of the 'observer effect'.
Be interesting to see how many candidates there are at the first Democrat debate.
And so the blessed grandpa will defeat the evil stone woman and he shall rise up on the clouds and travel to the city of Brussels. There the scribes shall bow before him and agree to the custom of taxation he wishes.
Jeremy the momentous shall then return to London and after taking a period of solemn reflection in his vegetable garden, he shall then return to Westminster to establish his socialist paradise
Re-running the EU referendum, although the worst idea since the original Breville Sandwich Toaster, is something I can just about get my head around.
That is very much not the case with WW2 - although some do seem to be still fighting it.
"The European Union is a tool of German hegemony over Europe. What Hitler failed to achieve with his messerschmitts and panzer divisions is being insidiously and relentlessly forced upon the continent by other means."
I keep hearing.
As we approach the end of an extraordinary week, are we much the wiser? As most of us expected, May's Withdrawal Agreement was heavily defeated in the Commons - whether many of us thought it would go down so heavily I don't know - but I still get the sense it is no Norwegian Blue and is still there in the background.
I said on Monday five things wouldn't happen - these included a Second Referendum, Revocation of A50 and a GE. The polls might offer the Conservatives a window of opportunity but 230 was a big margin and there's no guarantee the new Conservative intake would be full of May loyalists itching to vote for her Deal.
At the moment then it's No Deal and the consequences thereof. I imagine a mutually agreed extension to A50 is more than possible but to do what? Additional preparations for leaving without a Deal - possibly but I keep hearing this notion of the permanent CU.
Both May and Corbyn face significant difficulties - May has a policy her Party doesn't want while Corbyn doesn't have a policy but his Party wants one.
As an aside, I'm inclined to the view that IF we had a second vote, LEAVE would win again and possibly by a larger margin but that's all obfuscation. The problem is more immediate and I suspect the can should be ready for another kicking as I see little alternative to an extension to A50 at this time.
Leave winning by a bigger margin probably a good thing, would give legitimacy to the result in enough peoples eyes that you could force through a hard or maybe even a no deal Brexit through parliament with little objection.
The EU won’t agree to that because the WA traps us in the backstop with no way out unless we take the terms that are given to us by the EU.
Norway solves the trade issue but is effectively EU membership excluding the CAP and CFP. Signing up to paying for trade, Single Market Rules, the Common External Tariff and continues freedom of movement is not going to persuade Leave MPs.
It’s gridlock and the effective choice is therefore no deal or Brexit.
Unlike Boris.
Another muppet who takes video the wrong way around.